On the comparison of modern FPS vs classic FPS.

Do I enjoy a modern FPS played today more enjoyable than I remember playing a classic FPS years ago?
No. Back then it was enough. Enjoyment level likely equal. It was gaming then, good memories and lots of fun. Levels of happiness and frustration are about equal, but likely for different reasons. For example, frustration of the "rat in the maze" level design of classic FPS was likely higher in the past, while level of intelligence in opponents is now probably more of a frustration now. Initially I was hooked on FPS, Dark Forces, Doom, Duke 3D, Wolfenstein 3D, Quake, Quake II on and on...

Do I enjoy a classic FPS played today as much as playing it years ago?
Hell no. Absolutely not. I've moved onto more realistic combat and advanced game mechanics. I now hate the old game design of "press the switch by moving up against it", or "it doesn't matter if you wing the enemy, you've hit him anyway".
You get the point. Some gamers out there still get a big kick out of replaying older FPS games or claim that these old games are somehow "better" than their modern and more advanced offspring. I simply don't get that. Apples and Oranges peeps.

My 2 cents worth.

In the days, from Wolfstain to Duke3D to Half-life to Operation Flashpoint, every single game was a gem on its own.
New gameplay, new graphics, new challenges, new controls, more interactive environments and more tricks from the Dev.
Then the curve stopped.

The shoorter become more corridor-based warfare-movie style, with scripted sequences and more corridor shooter than even Doom.

I don't believe the "we have seen it all".
I believe that innovate is risky and difficult (raising costs) and, at the moment, the market absorb anything like a sponge from established franchises.

I still have to try the new Doom, so can't comment on this one specifically.

we haven't, there are many new fps's that shakes up the formula. you have for example Tower of Guns / Motergunship or Borderlands franchise or Ravenfield. as it has always been, there is many "me to" games - but also some who do their own thang. We remember Doom and Quake today, but not the bad clones that came out just after.

The general disdain or dislike aimed at Doom 3 and Quake IV has always confounded me. Both offered not just good, but great fps experiences imo. D3 had perhaps a few too many closet monster and jump scares true, but I can't think of a single bad thing to say of Q4. I'd easily put it in a top5 list for best fps single player campaigns.

Regarding the AI, I much prefer the old style of enemies actually attacking you. These days, enemies flinch/stagger when getting hit by anything, perform scripted animations that render them harmless for seconds, utilize cover ineffectively when their head, hand and a leg are sticking out of the cover free for you to shoot at, announce everything they do for some reason even if they are alone: "Greanade!!!" in case you've missed the giant indicator on your screen and I could continue like this for a long time.

And difficulty doesn't have to come mainly from AI. In Serious Sams for example, the main part of the difficulty comes from dodging, enemy & ammo management, target prioritization, choosing the right weapon for the task and all that in a matter of seconds or you die. Yeah, bullet wounds healing by themselves is much more immersive. Picking up a healing item at least gives you the feeling you actually did something to heal and not just being an offspring of Wolverine. Never mind that auto heal games become boringly repetitive after 30 minutes of play with the "Screen is red, hide for a few seconds" and repeat ad infinitum till the end of the game. For example, Mass Effect 2 was absolutely ruined by this as the gameplay was nearly unbearable and easily made it the worst in the entire series. You haven't truly been swamped unless you've played Serious Sams. Damn Marsh Hoppers....

One of the best there is.

Doom 3 (the original, not BFG edition) was a very good horror game but not a very good FPS. Quake 4 is nothing stellar but still better than most modern offerings.

Also, am I the only one here who was not amazed by the new Doom? It was kind of MEH to me.
The only FPS I'm looking forward to in years is the new Serious Sam.

The new Serious Sam for now is only a tech demo and is very bad...


I'll try a Press Copy if possible...

When I played Serious Sam, I was like: "A RPG with that graphics would be great."

Well, I did finished Wolfenstein 3D (and Spear of Destiny) back in late 90-s. But I doubt that I would enjoy similar expericence, as gameplay in shooters became far more nuanced and variative.

Of later shoters I've finished BioShock Infinite. Yes, it's shooter despite some RPG elements. Though personally, I don't consider it a very good shooter. The story was great though, especially the ending.

The laters shooter, I've played was Far Cry 5. I like it a lot as a shooter and as a game that really knows how to entertain player. However, the story was rather meh. And ending was disappointing somewhat.

Bottom line - there are a lot of shooters today and many of them have very different design. So today everyone can find something to one's liking.

Seconded. The video interviews I've saw with the creators way back when said precisely this. They were looking to go the atmospheric horror path, rather than the wham-bam "fun" shooter one.

I can confirm that Blood was a lot of fun to play.

I remember playing (Hexen, Wolfenstein 3D, Doom 2, Duke Nuke 'em 3D, Kingpin, Realms of the Haunting.

And those were also great.

I don't see it like that. Stepping on a red cross (or running over a series of them) and being healed in a little 'whooff' feels weir (oddly I'm less bothered by instant ammo acquisition). Finding cover gives me the feel that it was just a scratch, but with numbing pain, and required a breath. I suppose the best of two worlds can be achieved with health packs that require activation, and leave you vulnerable for a short time. I liked the healing needles of the Predator in AvP, or the fun self-surgery animations in Far Cry 2.

The only advantage of the health pack system is that it allows you to end a level with barely any health left. But, an advantage of self-regeneration is that you feel the pain more, as it affords some impact on your abilities (vision, speed) without locking you too definitely into a negative loop.

I am a classic guy. Predictable patterns of mobs, same spawn spot to be memorized, actual single player levels, etc. More so because I lack the fast twitch reflexes to play as required today. Something like Overwatch... yeeesh I cant imagine even being capable of controlling my avatar. Last "modern" FPS I put any time into was Delta Force and I wasnt any good. And thats when I was still capable of reading without glasses.

Edit: horrific spelling...

Everyone seems to have forgotten classics like Witcheaven I and II.

Those where absolutely amazing at the time.
Melee, missile and magics blended in a FPS world with a touch of RPG.

The story was crap (story...?) but the game were absolutely a blast.